…and see where they may lead.

1. The GOP-POTUS race continues to be dynamic, with advocates for each major candidate participating on the RS websites as they are created seriatim.

2. The model of “Mitt v. anti-Mitt” [popularized by inter-alia Dick Morris] has been supplanted by multiple paradigms; although it may be tempting to invoke “The Newt v. anti-The Newt”…I would prefer “Mitt/The Newt v. anti-Mitt/The Newt” because of the adherence by both to the Individual Mandate [as was just highlighted in today's Perry-ad].

3. If The Newt predictably KO’s Mitt [and the GOP-Establishment] by ensuring he doesn’t win in NH by double-digits [noting that his support starts @ a "thin" level], then the Wall St. guys will need to ponder if they could warm-up to The Newt.

4. Judging from the revised report of the meeting between The Newt and prominent conservatives in the D.C. region [earlier this week, as reported in the Examiner], it seems that wise people can slice through his rhetoric privately…and can find it wanting; the same could be true when he is intensely interviewed by both the GOP-Establishment and the Wall St. crowd.

5. If this be the case, and the “intensity factor” cannot be adequately sustained as people get to know The Newt, then the second-rise of Perry could truly peak as Iowans visit their caucuses.

6. Meanwhile, as I noted elsewhere, the Evangelicals and TEA Party Movement activists could determine that it is necessary to coalesce ASAP…behind Perry.

7. That another RS-posting on the “Culture/Religious Wars” concluded that he could get another ad out of BHO’s recent [non]conduct, this suggests that the “values” component of the campaign could also align the stars in favor of Perry.

8. Then, it would be time for a gut-check for all, including myself; as a Jew who is “multiple choice” – and who is regularly grappling with the issue of how to awaken my co-religionists – the presumed challenge would become magnified.

9. The “electability” criterion [as vague as it is, as per prior analysis] would still have to be confronted, recalling the adage “better watch out for what you wish, for you may get it.”

10. If this terse review/projection is accurate, the GOP would have less than a year to educate the Independents that the jobs/jobs/jobs issue should supplant the compulsion to re-elect the printer of Obama-money.

[References have purposefully not been inserted in this summary/analysis; they will be re-provided separately, because the goal was to synthesize many of the discussions composed during the past seven hours.]

The conclusion of this essay ["Gingrich might be the default Republican candidate in 2012, the one the voters are turning to when all else have failed"] must now be poked…and then the noise evoked must be itself audiogrammed.

1. It is true that a perception exists that time-is-tight; as noted elsewhere, such a realization “focuses the mind,” but it also elides of the possibility of a protracted process.

2. If the latter course were to emerge, picking the likely dyad [Mitt/Perry] would be $-based, for The Newt is not organized and his pomposity is simply impossible to ignore.

3. The results of the two upcoming debates are, of course, unknowns, but the expectations-game in the MSM/LSM/ELM will be @ full-tilt, with each of the major candidates serving as potential pinatas, either perceived or real.

4. Meanwhile, because it’s generally assumed that Bachmann/Santorum won’t make it to S.C. unless either/both hit double-digits in Iowa, the “A” game will be expected from each candidate; Perry has been broken-in now, in multiple interview settings, and he could be anticipated to be lucid [evincing his personality, albeit not to the extent of that Friday-p.m. performance in N.H.].

5. It remains amazing how each minor candidate is serving a tactical purpose from the perspective of this Perry-supporter**; in this regard, the ads promulgated by Paul against The Newt are particularly welcome in these quarters for obvious reasons…not the least of which is that they are accurate [**-I learned a month ago not to refer to advocates of a particular candidate as a "*-bot" because, although we are blogging via 'puters, we are not acting in a robotic fashion.]

6. Therefore, because RS is a cutting-edge site, we can assume that the more serious student of these posts [who has processed them before blogging] has something meaningful to contribute to the grassroots discussion of profound issues [for we are not acting in self-interest in the process].

7. Although some may view people such as myself as having walked-the-edge when calling-out others, the net-result has generally been some degree of internal/external recognition of essential truths; without mentioning any specific names, let’s just say that people who drop-off-the-radar-screen after having failed to document facts or to buttress arguments, they have become notable by their absences.

8. Just as the pace of the race has seemingly quickened, so too has the movement of consensus on RS; this exploration has consumed personal hours, but I suspect most share the sense of urgency that perhaps antedates what those elsewhere belatedly recognize…namely, that key-realizations emerging here [even on such seemingly-mundane topics as whether a given candidate met a filing deadline for delegates in a given state] are credible and durable.

9. We know we have achieved something valuable when an intercurrent event can be promptly characterized within a putative “construct” that has emerged via consensus on RS; for example, little attention was paid to the invitation of The Donald to attend his 12/27 discussion [although it was raised as a tactical parameter], and it now appears that he will only be hosting The Newt and Santorum. [rendering it as minimally important as will be all the "lincoln-douglas" debates that The Newt can piece-together].

10. Therefore, we can confidently discuss whatever now transpires [such as the two upcoming debates, ABC/FNC, during the next week], recognizing that “the gloves will be off” among multiple “reality-show”-themed subcontexts [macro and micro].

While I’ve been posting, along came CC…who posted the frustrating interview by Rush while “poking” The Newt on this very issue.

Although it’s tempting to try to ID the moments when The Newt appeared to be providing a non-filibuster and a distilled-sentence, it’s preferable to watch the entire interview; Rush’s emotional reactions were telling.

After the break @ 11-minutes, he appeared to “allow for” people [who had gone-naked and then had gotten sick] to purchase a policy from a high-risk pool [developed allegedly under the guidance of John Goodman...whose "blast" e-mails I receive daily]. He then apparently endorsed rejection of a 3rd party payer model. He then supported Medicaid block-grants, and then would “design markets” to make purchases “attractive” [e.g., MSA's, Medicare Advantage]. He then would have government”provide freedom to seniors” as if the government would ever have been afforded this right.

{He apologized regarding the “social engineering of Rep. Ryan” because of the effects of his quote, not for the actual attack he had issued thereupon.}

The outcome of this interview was expression of “bankrupt knowledge” as to whether The Newt had answered any of his questions succinctly.

http://nation.foxnews.com/media/2011/05/17/rush-rails-against-newt

Thus, the 25 dominoes established supra are now tipped; as has been exhaustively discussed here by yours-truly.

Once The Newt endorses any incarnation of a fiscal-component of the Individual Mandate, he is anathema to Constitutional Conservatives.

trying to get all these thoughts out on-paper, for cogent critique

…on two other sites:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/08/my-endorsement-for-president/#comment-149216

and

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/08/the-horserace-for-december-8-2011/#comment-149214

*

The former captures how I had boxed-in JSobieski regarding his defense of The Newt with regard to the Individual Mandate, and the latter culminates in a “memo? issued to the Constitutional Conservatives and Values voters in Iowa.

New articles by Jennifer Rubin [who is assuredly pro-Mitt] illustrate the pivotal importance of point #2 [supra], much as she would deny its spill-over damage to her favorite candidate:

2. The model of ?Mitt v. anti-Mitt? [popularized by inter-alia Dick Morris] has been supplanted by multiple paradigms; although it may be tempting to invoke ?The Newt v. anti-The Newt??I would prefer ?Mitt/The Newt v. anti-Mitt/The Newt? because of the adherence by both to the Individual Mandate [as was just highlighted in today's Perry-ad].

First:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/still-old-newt–gingrich-denies-his-ethics-problems/2011/12/08/gIQAlJtwfO_blog.html

Second:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/perry-romney-and-paul-pile-on/2011/12/08/gIQAxe97fO_blog.html#pagebreak

Which starts with Perry’s incisive ad:

*

And, if they bloody each other sufficiently-thoroughly, along comes Perry.

A recent article from ABC’s Jake Tapper, a somewhat sleazy web-page, and a compilation of some quotable-quotes illustrate the pivotal importance of points #4 and #6 [supra]:

4. Judging from the revised report of the meeting between The Newt and prominent conservatives in the D.C. region [earlier this week, as reported in the Examiner], it seems that wise people can slice through his rhetoric privately?and can find it wanting; the same could be true when he is intensely interviewed by both the GOP-Establishment and the Wall St. crowd.

6. Meanwhile, as I noted elsewhere, the Evangelicals and TEA Party Movement activists could determine that it is necessary to coalesce ASAP?behind Perry.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/any-other-skeletons-in-gingrichs-closet-not-that-i-know-of/

TAPPER: I?ve spoken to a lot of Republicans, voters across the country and also Republican operatives and staffers in Washington, DC, who like you, who want to support you, but they have two concerns. The first concern is they worry that even though you are a familiar figure that maybe there are still skeletons in your closet that we don?t know about. And they would come out and that would help elect President Obama should you be the nominee. Are there any skeletons that we don?t know about?

GINGRICH: Not that I know of. I mean, again, given the nature of the modern world whatever is there I?m sure will come out in the end. But to the best of my knowledge people know an immense amount about me. Probably more than any candidate who is running. I think people have dealt with and thought through whether or not they could support me.

*

http://www.realchange.org/gingrich.htm

http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/local/courier_times_news/opinion/oped/newt-no-nos-quotes-that-should-disqualify-gingrich/article_48caa7b6-5d1b-5a85-99ec-2cdbb18a5826.html

Here are 10 quotes from Newt Gingrich?s skeleton closet that should disqualify him from ever being president.

1. ?I?m not a natural leader. I?m too intellectual; I?m too abstract; I think too much.?
–Newt, admitting that he?s an intellectual elitist incapable of leading.

2. ?If the Soviet empire still existed, I?d be terrified. The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now.?
–Newt, saying that it?s OK for the president to be ignorant.

3. ?The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.?
–Newt, arguing that it?s OK for politicians to be bought and paid for.

4. ?Give the park police more ammo.?
–Newt, on what to do about the homeless a few days after the police shot a homeless man in front of the White House.

5. ?The problem isn?t too little money in political campaigns, but not enough.?
–Newt, campaign finance reform.

6. ?I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I?m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.?
–Newt, blowing his own horn.

7. ?Now, we don?t get rid of it in round one because we don?t think that that?s politically smart, and we don?t think that?s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it?s going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it .?
–Newt, admitting that while they won?t kill Medicare outright, Republicans will try to make it wither on the vine and die.

8. ?She isn?t young enough or pretty enough to be the President?s wife.?
–Newt, talking about his first wife after divorcing her.

9. ?It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid…These schools should get rid of unionized janitors, have one master janitor, pay local students to take care of the school.?
–Newt, advocating for an end to child labor laws so businesses can fire union workers and replace them with cheap labor.

10. ?I think one of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don?t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal and faithful and all those Boy Scout words.?
–Newt, advocating for hateful rhetoric and smearing opponents with lies.

*

And, more importantly, recall the refrain:

“And, if they bloody each other sufficiently-thoroughly, along comes Perry.”

The counterattacks from the MSM/LSM/ELM are propitiously timed [pre x-mas] for maximal reaction from the Iowa electorate:

http://swampland.time.com/2011/12/09/why-rick-perrys-new-ads-are-wrong-on-religion-and-obama/

“…most flagrant is Perry?s reference to ‘Obama?s war on religion’ without evidence or explanation.”

AND

“Rick Perry, Meet Obama?s Office Of Faith-Based Partnerships”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/12/08/385549/rick-perry-meet-obamas-office-of-faith-based-partnerships/

AND

Secular group lobbies Obama to address religious hiring practices

http://www.statejournal.com/story/16218888/secular-group-lobbies-obama-to-address-religious-hiring-practices

DESPITE

Let?s Not Persecute Gays, But Christians? Meh.

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/08/lets-not-persecute-gays-but-christians-meh/

“The President has until December 16, 2011, to reauthorize the [U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom] and thus far the Commission members say the President has no plans to reauthorize it.”

And also note his comments yesterday on CNN regarding the religion issue:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/perry-hits-obama-for-war-on-faith-despite-a-ghost-of-holiday-season-past/

after they had summarized it here

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/07/new-perry-ad-derides-obamas-war-on-religion/

THEREFORE, as EE concluded:

“I guess Rick Perry gets another commercial out of this issue.”

*

Perry’s message to the Evangelicals is that he will integrate their message into his repertoire aggressively [as Santorum would do, if he had the resources] and that he will go right-at BTO [as Bachmann would do, if she had the resources].

Perry’s message to the TPM is equally potent; he’ll be a dynamic proponent of Federalism and Constitutional Limited Government [as others are ill-equipped to do, for myriad reasons, because he has the resources].

These points buttress point #7 [supra]:

“7. That another RS-posting on the ‘Culture/Religious Wars’ concluded that he could get another ad out of BHO?s recent [non]conduct, this suggests that the ‘values’ component of the campaign could also align the stars in favor of Perry.”

…to ignore the “baubles,” but can’t you project how BHO would invoked this as a component of the “class-warfare”-based campaign?